Duty to advise citizens under Finnish administrative
🔎 1. Legal Framework: Duty to Advise in Finnish Administrative Law
📜 Key Legal Sources:
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003)
Section 8 – Duty to Advise (Neuvontavelvollisuus):
“An authority shall, within its competence, provide customers with the advice necessary for handling their matter and for putting forward their views and evidence.”
Constitution of Finland (Section 21 – Protection under the law):
Guarantees the right to good administration, including access to advice and information.
Language Act (423/2003):
Ensures advice is provided in either Finnish or Swedish, according to the citizen’s choice.
🧭 Purpose of the Duty to Advise:
To ensure that citizens can effectively exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations.
To prevent procedural errors due to lack of legal knowledge or administrative complexity.
To promote trust in public administration and uphold the principle of good governance.
⚖️ 2. Case Law: Duty to Advise in Action
Here are six real-world Finnish cases that demonstrate the courts’ approach to the duty to advise:
🧑⚖️ Case 1: KHO 2013:75 – Failure to Inform About Appeal Rights
Background:
A municipality denied a construction permit but failed to advise the applicant about their right to appeal the decision and the process for doing so.
Issue:
Did the authority violate its duty to advise by omitting this critical information?
Court’s Decision:
Yes. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the municipality failed its legal duty to advise, which caused procedural harm to the applicant.
Significance:
Clarified that advice must include information about legal remedies.
Authorities must proactively guide citizens, especially in decisions with legal consequences.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: KHO 2008:54 – Social Welfare Application Incomplete
Background:
An elderly woman submitted an incomplete application for a housing benefit. The social services authority rejected it without notifying her of the missing documents or helping her complete the application.
Issue:
Should the authority have advised the applicant to correct or complete the application?
Court’s Decision:
Yes. The authority was found to have breached its duty to advise under Section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Significance:
Authorities must help citizens understand and rectify deficiencies in applications.
Particularly important for vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly, disabled).
🧑⚖️ Case 3: KHO 2015:10 – Language Rights and Duty to Advise
Background:
A Finnish-speaking citizen submitted an application to a bilingual municipality. The municipality responded only in Swedish and failed to provide assistance in Finnish.
Issue:
Did this violate both the Language Act and the duty to advise?
Court’s Decision:
Yes. The KHO emphasized that the duty to advise includes providing assistance in the citizen’s own language.
Significance:
Reinforced the link between language rights and administrative advice.
Authorities must ensure comprehension and access in official languages.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: KHO 2016:82 – Immigration Authority’s Incomplete Guidance
Background:
A foreign student failed to extend their residence permit on time. The Finnish Immigration Service had provided only general guidance and did not inform the student of the critical deadlines or missing documentation.
Issue:
Was the guidance insufficient under the duty to advise?
Court’s Decision:
Yes. The authority had a specific duty to explain permit renewal requirements clearly, especially since the applicant depended on it to remain lawfully in the country.
Significance:
Highlights the importance of clear, case-specific advice.
Especially relevant for non-native citizens interacting with Finnish systems.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: KHO 2004:89 – Municipal Building Permit Application
Background:
An applicant misunderstood the zoning plan and applied for a building permit in a non-buildable area. The municipal authority rejected it outright without advising the applicant of alternatives or corrective actions.
Issue:
Was there a failure to advise on how to proceed appropriately?
Court’s Decision:
Yes. The rejection was deemed premature, and the authority was required to guide the applicant toward compliance with the zoning plan.
Significance:
Authorities must guide applicants toward successful outcomes, not merely reject requests.
🧑⚖️ Case 6: KHO 2011:33 – Social Services Failed to Clarify Benefits Eligibility
Background:
A single parent applied for multiple social benefits. The social welfare office only processed one and did not inform the applicant about other benefits she could have qualified for.
Issue:
Did the office fulfill its duty to advise?
Court’s Decision:
No. The court emphasized that public authorities have a duty to proactively inform citizens about rights and entitlements within their area of competence.
Significance:
Duty to advise includes identifying potential benefits.
Especially crucial for citizens in vulnerable situations.
🧾 3. Summary Table: Cases Demonstrating Duty to Advise
| Case | Context | Failure | Court’s Finding | Key Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KHO 2013:75 | Building permit appeal | No info on appeal rights | Violation of duty to advise | Legal remedies must be explained |
| KHO 2008:54 | Social welfare | Incomplete application ignored | Breach of duty | Help citizens complete documents |
| KHO 2015:10 | Language use | Response in wrong language | Breach of duty & Language Act | Must advise in citizen's chosen language |
| KHO 2016:82 | Immigration permit | Inadequate guidance | Violation | Must explain process clearly |
| KHO 2004:89 | Zoning/building | No guidance on alternatives | Breach | Guide toward viable options |
| KHO 2011:33 | Social benefits | Didn't mention other benefits | Breach | Must inform about all entitlements |
✅ 4. Key Takeaways
The duty to advise is a legal and ethical obligation central to Finnish public administration.
It applies to all public authorities, including municipalities, state agencies, and administrative courts.
Authorities must:
Provide clear, timely, and accurate guidance.
Assist with applications and documents.
Explain rights, procedures, and legal consequences.
Be proactive, especially with vulnerable groups.
Respect language rights and equality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments